I likely agree again.
I could have worded that part better… I meant you have a right to use whatever level of force is *necessary* to stop the aggression. This means the use of force that is proportional to the aggressor (minimal level, factoring circumstance), to stop the aggression.
The topic of justice and restitution is complicated, meaning room for grey areas - I fully acknowledge this.
There simply needn’t be a centralized group forcing what they think is just. If a group forces a monopoly on justice, that justice systems is initiating aggression against anyone who wishes to compete.
If one were to use a disproportional level of force, then others could decide how they feel they should respond to that individual. This way, there’s no violently imposed monopoly. Justice, is therefore decentralized and people freely can choose to cooperate with any given justice system or justice method… so long as there’s no violently imposed obligation to it against outright consent.
